SmartTranscript of House Agriculture – 2025-02-11 – 2:45APM

[Chair David Durfee]: Well, it's discussed that there were perhaps some different perspectives that state various stakeholders had in the conversation. The AG's office was charged with putting together the report, which they did. We are gonna hear the second thing from the logging community or at least representatives of the logging community on their thoughts on that report. So we've we've asked, Dana Duran to join us. He's here in the committee room, and I see Sam is also joining us remotely from the woods, I imagine. So welcome to both of you. And we've got until about three thirty. So I don't I don't know how much material you've got, but if you we'll we'll let you present it, and then we'll see what questions you might have afterwards. [Witness Dana Duran]: Sounds great. And I did provide written testimony, so you should have all all have that at this point, but I'll I'll run through that. So representative Durfee, representative Supernaugh, members of the House Committee on Agriculture, Food, Resilience, and Forestry, my name is Dana Duran. I'm the executive director of Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast. We are an educational association that represents timber harvesting and hauling contractors both here in Maine, but also in New Hampshire and the state of Maine. I'm not gonna run down through our background. Happy to do that, but I'll try to skip over some of my written testimony. So during a previous legislative session, the PLC supported h six fourteen, which came through this committee that ultimately recommended that the attorney general work with stakeholders to write the report that was last week. Timber harvesters are not generally in favor of more government regulation. However, we believe then and still today that the legislation which was supported by this committee last year was an important step to professionalize the industry in Vermont, protect landowners, and ensure that the industry moves forward without a black eye that has festered here in the state of Vermont for decades. So this past summer and fall, Sam Lincoln, we are going to hear from a little bit, from Lincoln Farm Timber Harvesting, myself and other stakeholders worked with Megan Harris, the assistant attorney general, to review and recommend the four pillars of the final report which were required in the legislation that passed last session. We provided responses to questions, took Ms. Harris to visit an active timber harvest, participated in a single stakeholder discussion in the fall, and also reviewed the draft report in advance of sending it to this committee. However, the final report that was provided to this committee was at no time reviewed by the group in a joint setting, excuse me, nor was it released with any type of majority consensus. Thus, it is a report issued by the AGO, but it doesn't have noted consensus or support from the stakeholders jointly. It was our goal to be sure that the final report was a thorough dissection of the issues pertaining to timber trespass and timber theft in Vermont, but provided solid recommendations that were implemented or enacted to improve the situation in the state. We're thankful to Ms. Harris for her time and attention to the process, the issues and the narration of the final report. Miss Harris was very professional from start to finish and really tried to understand the situation as well as the issues that needed to be addressed to make forward progress. Miss Harris provided a draft or a final report for me to review on January second twenty twenty five. The opinions and recommendations that we provided in writing to miss Harris on January twelfth twenty twenty five still hold true. And I think it's important for this committee to understand our perspective on the final report as well as the comments that we provided to Ms. Harrath, which unfortunately were not included in the final production. So in the introduction, the report succinctly lays out the four primary purposes for the study committee and the report back. However, we don't feel that the report provided equal weight to each of the four pillars. There was significant time and attention given to the landscape of complaints, the levels of enforcement, and the ultimate outcomes, which was a summary of the issues pillar number one. However, the other three pillars, other states, policy recommendations, and property seizures are quite brief and relatively inconclusive. As a result, we don't feel that the report provided to this committee nor the agencies within the executive branch actually provides a roadmap to move forward with changes. Instead, recommendation section essentially calls for a two year pause to see what takes place as a result of the implementation of age six fourteen an education and awareness campaign taken on by the industry, enforcement ideas with no plan nor dedication of resources, and a hope that awareness by stakeholders will lead to greater intake. While these recommendations could bear fruit, most are based upon a quote possibility and lack any type of ownership, direction, or mapping. In addition, we also believe that the report lacks the following specificity. One, conclusions for each section or statutory questions for further inquiry. Two, the statute specifies quote a summary of mechanisms or alternatives utilized in other states to effectively enforce or prevent timber theft or similar crimes. The only comparative inquiry that was provided in the report was from Maine. And this information was offered by our organization as it was also included in our testimony on h six fourteen last session. Three, so our I guess our summary is or question is, was other comparative research done and are there other examples to examine from other states? Three, there are no recommendations other than waiting two years and a broad brush approach to education and or case intake. It's not clear why harvest notification and or trip tickets were not included or any other program policy changes, staffing, or any mention of budget estimates to solve the problem. Four, there were no recommendations from government agency stakeholders, including FBR, the state police, the assistant attorney generals, or excuse me, the assistant state attorneys other than a reference to FBR issuing citations. Without some tangible input and recommendations from those statutorily charged with protected force and the public, this report essentially lacks traction to advance legislation or create meaningful change. In the end, our organization feels strongly that to improve the image of the industry in Vermont, to gain the trust of landowners that logging contractors are stewards and not thieves, a coordinated and thoughtful approach to the issue of timber theft and trespass is vital. While this report was a good starting point, it does not provide the depth nor specificity to move forward expecting results. We would ask this committee to think seriously about what is necessary to move forward and take our opinions and recommend recommendations to heart. Thanks for the opportunity to speak for you today, and I'm happy to answer any questions. [Chair David Durfee]: Alright. If the committee has questions that you wanted to direct to Dana, we can do that. We also I don't know whether Sam, if we were going to say if you had comments as well, Sam, but I'm looking to the committee for to see if there's any immediate thoughts or questions. Representative O'Brien? Go ahead. Representative O'Brien. Alright. [Representative John O'Brien]: Dan, I just in the hindsight now, looking back as we were we went through this process. We heard a lot of testimony. Right? Just what would have you done differently? I mean, it we've gone right to something, and it seemed like was it on the attorney general's and and state's attorney's side where they had misgivings about moving forward with this? Because I remember we had versions of the bill that Sure. May have been stronger. [Witness Dana Duran]: Good question, representative O'Brien. You know, I can't speak on behalf of the of the attorney general, and I and I'm not trying to cast aspersions upon the attack they took or the process. From a process perspective, you know, I thought they job soliciting input, soliciting feedback. I think that in hindsight, I would have brought the group back together. I would have searched for solutions that all of us could coalesce around. They could have been things that we provided. They could have been recommendations, but we don't know what they are. And again, I mentioned before there was no consensus. I mean, this was we provided input on some questions. We did a field visit. We had one stakeholder meeting, and and we got to look at the draft report individually. So there was no consensus. So that's, I think, a big part that's missing at this point so that there are some tangible recommendations and that you had multiple stakeholders saying, okay, let's pause for two years. Let's see how this law went into effect. But over here, let's go over here and do this or let's make this recommendation or this is in statute already. We could do this. So who would take the lead? And I think that's Sam's gonna talk quite a bit about this. And I don't I don't wanna steal his thunder, but what's the roadmap to go forward besides pause? You know, there are some recommendations in here, but they don't have any ownership. Who's gonna do the work? Who's doing what? We have agencies that are already involved. What are they gonna do? Is this an industry problem still or is this a is this a public problem? So those are the things that I think could have been, I guess, furthered had we had further dialogue, had there been more stakeholder discussions. [Representative Jed Lipsky]: Representative Lipsky. Yeah. I first of all, for all transparency, I did participate in the stakeholder meetings at least two over the summer, one on-site, one pavilion building. And as a long time timber harvester, I have held licenses in four other states where it worked. So then the Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York. And there are a lot of options that are not necessarily it we're put into place in neighboring states, and I've never actually worked in Maine. So they are effective and not onerous for as a timber harvester. They do offer some protections, which I would I share exec executive director Doran's concern at the woods. No opportunity to discuss or peel back any of these other options around the northeast that had been in place in some case for decades and where they still have very vibrant timber harvesting communities. With that said, again, as someone who reported this bill and advocated for it last session, mostly out of honor in the looking after the land owners who were vulnerable and targeted historically and continually that came to our committee in in good faith, hoping for some support. I feel that we did let them down and the industry which profession which I love and depend on for a living, I I think we could have done better. So I'll look that's more of a comment, but it's still a challenge that this is work that's incomplete. And kicking the can down the road for two years is not a solution. [Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yep. I mean, Jeremy, what, Sean, is your industry's suggestion to what what what and and that yeah. That's that's my question. What was you recommend that state give? [Witness Dana Duran]: Good question. You know, I think we've been pretty adamant and consistent last session when we came in to testify in h h six fourteen during the stakeholder process, you know, we laid out the fact that there needs to be a potential trip ticket system that's that's employed, that is required for every load of wood that comes off of a landowner. There is a a new oil that goes from the contractor landowner to the mill so that in the event there is timber theft or timber trespass, you have a paper trail that's already there that exists. And you could say that the the cowboys or those who don't go along with the law are going to skirt that. Well, if the mills know that they can't accept a load of wood without a trip ticket, without origination information about where that wood is coming from and who the landowner is, then they're culpable too if they don't accept it. So that's number one. We've advocated for an operations notification system, some simple system so that the state, whether it's FDR or whomever else is gonna be in the policing world, knows where harvests are taking place. Again, so that it's a track and trace system. You know exactly where harvests are happening, who is involved. There could be a random inspection. Folks know that, they know that upfront. I think that's a secondary piece. From FPR's standpoint, I think there's gotta be some education to landowners, to contractors, but it all depends upon resources and then what inevitably is asked of the agency to implement. And it it could go far beyond that. But I would say from our perspective, those are the three big pieces. [Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Do you do you think that that could potentially happen through the county foresters of the state in operations notifications? [Witness Dana Duran]: I I certainly think it could happen. There likely will have to be some type of an enforcement mechanism to do the inspections. I don't think the county foresters do all that they have on their plates are gonna go out and be able to lay eyes on the ground on every single operation. That might include whether it's I from W and we wouldn't want to add responsibility to them either, but there needs to be some type of a ranger position at some point that's involved where the landowner can you know, ask questions. They have issues. They can report. There has to be a central conduit. And right now, it's it's like this. Yeah. I'm gonna see. [Representative Jed Lipsky]: I mean, [Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: it's it's sawmill's already having to do a cooling system, you know, similar to, like, you know, if I wanna go and and be exempt for tax at tractor supply or whatever or a or supply at a farm or at a fertilizer distribution place. I have to bring in a form and fill out and give it to them and say, I'm exempt. And this is Mhmm. You think maybe the sawmills when the loan comes in, the ticketed bumper or whatever, gets an operations notification at the same time saying, okay. This came from this job. This is what's going on, and they they could send that out. Whatever. Yeah. It's taking a taking a different cost. So those are details [Witness Dana Duran]: that you're working on. Yep. [Chair David Durfee]: Yep. We I I saw your hand, Richard, too. I'll get you in a sec. When we had testimony last week, I don't think we delved too much into the question of other states that other jurisdictions that might have been consulted or the time frame that this report was that that the ENG was charged with submitting the report. And and knowing that we had testimony separate testimony on a separate report last week that just pointed to how six months, the time between June and December isn't very long. And in order to to accomplish anything with this with group of stakeholders, getting everybody together, you know, can be a challenge. Mhmm. And I wonder if one I wonder whether you would like to comment on that whether having more input from other stakeholders might be a first and other, jurisdictions might be a good, you know, first step in moving forward. How much how much of so you have a position, perhaps other stakeholders have different positions. In order to actually move forward, how critical would it be to get more to see what other places are doing or maybe not? [Witness Dana Duran]: Yeah. I think it's critical. I mean, I'd like to understand from the attorney general's office. Do they look at other states? I mean, I've read the report. I know it's an airport. I know that's information that we provided to them. I'd like to know, did they consult with other states? Are there other regimes that are out there that potentially could be put in place in Vermont? I mean, Vermont is not Maine and Maine is not Vermont. So Maine might not be the right situation. Maybe there's another state that's similar to Vermont that has a system already. But I think having that baseline information is a is an important starting point. And then perhaps it is continuing the stakeholder process to move move down the road once you have more information. [Chair David Durfee]: Richard Nelson. Thank you. [Representative Richard Nelson]: Okay. So timber trespass, is it two different issues? Is it and I have two questions. Or is it two separate issues? The overharvest, you know, I understand when you do a harvest, do you have a prescription? If you're in current use, especially you have prescription for harvest. Is it to protect against the overharvest of the prescription? And is this also the same as timber fat where someone crosses property lines? [Witness Dana Duran]: Good. Good. Good question, representative. So I think they're they're not mutually exclusive, but they can also be tied together. So timber trespass generally occurs when you do cross a property line without permission and you harvest outside of a boundary. And generally timber trespass is there are two cases. There's knowingly intentionally and there's unintentional. There's a lot of contractors that do it unintentionally because the landowner told them, here's my boundary line. I had it surveyed. This is the point on the earth where it exists. Here are some monuments. And effectively, it turns out not to be the boundary line. They're not doing it knowingly. Then you also have timber trespass where it's knowing. You have someone who has been hired to do a job, they come in, oh, I see an acre over here. There's some hardwood. Hardwood market strong, I'm going to grab that wood. Then that becomes not only timber trespass, but it becomes timber theft. That's one case of timber theft. A second case of timber theft is someone is hired to do a job, they go in and they pay what they promised to pay, what was in the contract. They don't report the wood that they've sold and even say that I even sold this wood and and don't pay you for it. So that's also timber theft. Okay. For that. And so there are there are two different issues, but most of the time, they're wrapped together. Understood. Okay. And in [Representative Richard Nelson]: my world of of Dairy Firemen, the biggest three luggers I'm afraid of are DEC. And why has anyone thought of charging DEC with being in charge of this and because they they tend to have teeth. [Witness Dana Duran]: It's a valid a valid question. I would say all ideas are on the table. You know? But clearly, FBR has a role of responsibility. They are the enforcement regulatory. Not on all, but, you know, AMPs and etcetera, clear cutting. So And [Representative Richard Nelson]: and FBR FBR, I believe, is under ANR? [Representative John O'Brien]: It is. [Witness Dana Duran]: Along with DTC. [Representative Richard Nelson]: And and along with DEC, which who is their enforcement. [Representative Jed Lipsky]: Mhmm. [Representative Richard Nelson]: They're the pit bulls. Mhmm. [Witness Dana Duran]: Yeah. All idea all all ideas are good ideas. [Representative Richard Nelson]: I I just that a a situation happened up in the town close to me, and and the people just got they went in and just stole their timber. Mhmm. A big, you know, ten acres or eight acres or whatever it was. And then, you know, they're never gonna see that marketable. Their kids won't see it marketable. Maybe their grandkids will. [Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: And all it takes is one rotten apple to swallow the bush. Well, that's the that's the issue, [Chair David Durfee]: you know, that we're that we're faced here. [Representative John O'Brien]: Representative. Just to follow-up, Richard. The irony being that DEC then sometimes gets involved and says to the landowner, why is this job such a mess? You owe us money because Yes. The water's running for it shouldn't be now. [Representative Jed Lipsky]: Right? Yeah. Cool. [Chair David Durfee]: Sam, you've been listening in, and I hope you have the well, do you have the heat on in your cap there? So you're sitting still [Witness Sam Lincoln]: I do. [Chair David Durfee]: Okay. [Witness Sam Lincoln]: You can count on it. [Representative Jed Lipsky]: I'll have [Witness Sam Lincoln]: a fire going if I have to. [Chair David Durfee]: And and did you have any any I don't know if you wanted to add anything or if you had anything to say to start with? [Witness Sam Lincoln]: I I do. I do have testimony prepared. If I should proceed. Sure. Yeah. [Chair David Durfee]: Why don't you why don't you then? Yeah. [Witness Sam Lincoln]: Thank you. Thank you. And just to introduce myself, the new members of the committee. For the record, my name is Sam Lincoln. I own and operate a master logger certified mechanized timber harvesting and business in Randolph Center. In addition to my career as a multi generational farmer and logging contractor, I've also served four years as the deputy commissioner of the Department of Forest Parks and Recreation in the Scott administration, and I also currently serve on the board of the professional logging contracts in Northeast. It's nice to see you all. My my first testimony in the state house goes back thirty three years ago and actually twenty some years ago. Representative Nelson and I testified on ag issues together, quite some time ago. Thank you, Chairman Durfee and the committee for taking testimony on the report. My experience with the issue of the timber trespass spans my role in both the private and public sector. As a logging contractor, I am aware of various situations in which land owners, sometimes my neighbors, have been the victim of unscrupulous operators who betrayed their trust in their property. And this has occasionally resulted in my profession being held in very low regard by members of the public. As an official in the executive branch, I was essentially powerless to effectively respond to citizens that brought forth concerns about timber trespass that had been alleged to have occurred on their property with any resources that might bring them swift investigations, restitution, or justice. As a member of the PLC, I contributed to the development of six fourteen through working with representative Mahaley, through your community last session and as a stakeholder. And and did so put that time in as a as a volunteer and a member of the industry and the community, hopeful in developing effective next steps and reducing the instances, of timber trust pass and aiding in more predictable and effective prosecution. I was glad to learn as you may have last week that, not necessarily always happy to find out that there's been arrests, but, of anybody, but we were not aware that there have been arrests of people for the the crime of timber theft. Some data was generated through the through the stakeholder study group. That was good to know. And I certainly again, appreciate the efforts of the AGO, but I had to have specific, comments and questions, with the intent to take the action to deter and investigate timber trespass violations. The The report does note that additional resources are needed to more effectively investigate and prosecute allegations of timber trespass, but there were no estimates for necessary budgets, staffing, or materials to address these constraints that were provided to us as part of the stakeholder group or submitted in the report for us to digest and and provide feedback on. And that's one of the things we said last year was that if agencies need resources, then let us know what that is, and we will we will stand behind you. We do not ask. I've worked, as I said, for years in a state agency and I understand the constraints, but we can't get behind that if we don't know what's needed. And if we there was also not a budget or concept for a public awareness campaign to better inform landowners. And that was again a next step. So we'd like to know if there's a budget or a plan to implement that. The PLC, as Dana mentioned, we provided recommendations for a better chain of evidence that would help investigators determine if there's been a violation with the trip tickets and notification. But we did not hear from those charged with enforcing the laws if they felt that that would be these agencies find them to be effective tools in establishing that evidence chain of custody in the theft and subsequent sale of another person's personal property. Many of my experiences involve landowners who hit a dead end without access to the records of what timber was harvested there from their property when they found out what mill it had gone to and they were unable to obtain information that would be standard operating procedure if we did put some of these recommendations in place. Mister Caravo was one of the first land owners who had uncovered a trove of information about the the violations he personally looked into. And it was shocking to me to find out where the, you know, see his evidence and that there were local businesses that were buying that wood. And I think that it's, we've got to have a better system in place. The attorney general's office recommended a two year period of improved tracking for reports of timber trespass. But it does not say which agency or entity will take the lead on compiling data. I would like to know, has a central database or template for reporting these complaints been established and will it be made available to the stakeholders? Does a county forester or a state police officer of examples of the boots on the ground, civil servants interfacing with the public, do they know who to pass information along to if they receive a timber theft complaint to ensure it is recorded? Do they know what information to collect and submit that is currently missing that's in this recommendation to pause and gather info for two years? And will members of the public and the forest economy be able to submit reports of timber trespass to this collection? I concur with what Dana has presented on behalf of the PLC. Again, appreciate the work and professionalism of the AGO and the other stakeholders. But we feel that further work needs to be done in the near term, beginning with establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and next steps so that the work of all the parties on this issue does not fade away without action being taken. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'd be glad to, answer questions and participate in the discussion. [Chair David Durfee]: Sam, I'm I'm remembering that when we had a bit of this conversation last year, specific to trip tickets, and, Dana, you can also weigh in, that the point was raised that we have with fewer operating mills in Vermont, timber is often being taken across state lines or even in Canada across the, you know, the national boundary. And that that the sis a system of trip tickets might not be be effective in that case. So I I don't know if that's a logical argument or not. I remember it coming up while we have you here, I don't wanna be prejudging any suggestions. But if if we've got a minute or two and you have any thoughts on that, get get it jump start on the conversation might be helpful. [Representative John O'Brien]: Sam, you wanna take that first, and [Representative Jed Lipsky]: I'll I'll add to it? [Witness Sam Lincoln]: Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. And I think that wood from our logging operations depends job by job, month by month, market by market. We may very well be shipping a lot of wood to New Hampshire or Canada or or in or quite frequently, it stays in Vermont. But all that said, every load of wood that we send out, whether it's New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Quebec, it leaves with a trip ticket, and that trip ticket is is noted as a tracking number when I receive a settlement for that load of of product. Never once has a mill refused to honor my request and the and the and the standard that many loggers follow of using trip tickets to track the timber. And so it may be a a a scenario in which someone might dismiss the effectiveness of it because all the person has to do is just go take the wood to Canada and it won't be tracked. Well, that if if wood is crossing the international border, there's all kinds of bill of lading. There's all kinds of paperwork associated with that and ways to track that. And I think if it becomes standard operating procedure that trip tickets follow every load off the job that and and and and again, as a suggestion that the the landowner and the and the logging contractor identify the mills where the wood is going to markets, where it's gonna go to, whether it's a log yard or a mill or a paper mill or a biomass plant, that the landowner has that. They understand that it's disclosed to them where the product is going. So they if something goes awry, that they have a a a first phone call to make to ask for the for the weight slips or the scale slips for where the wood went. So there's a there's a there's a in any logging operation, there is a regular amount of paperwork being exchanged back and forth between the logging contractor, the trucker, the purchaser of the product, and the landowner. And, I I think that any professional logging contractor would not say that it's burdensome to, have some standardization to what we are are doing. And I don't mean to disparage anybody who doesn't necessarily if they're not doing it and they don't like it, I there's no disparagement meant to them, but it's a simple way to track what's happening and to create a chain of evidence. I think it's a I so we we rely on it absolutely just purely for tracking and and daily production notes, much less any any issues of what's left the [Representative Jed Lipsky]: job. I'll [Witness Dana Duran]: just add to it quickly just in the interest of time. So commodities, apples. Deliver a food product somewhere, corn, apples, fruit. Okay? That I guarantee that's being tracked because of food safety and regulate and regulation of of food safety. US Forest Service puts quarantines on where wood products can move because of whatever it might be. It might be emerald ash borer. It might be pine weevil. It might be x, y, and z. Well, that wood cannot cross certain borders as a result of that. How do you keep track of it? There are limitations all around us for all kinds of commodities, regardless of where it is. Where does fuel oil come from? So does a a a shipload of of Irving oil come from from New Brunswick, land in Boston gets shipped to Vermont, and there's there's no ticket that goes along with that as to where that originated from, I I can't even fathom that that that that process happens. So why are we so opposed to it? [Witness Sam Lincoln]: I think if I could add, I would just say that I mean, how many of us are looking at our electronic devices every day, tracking a delivery that we expect from Amazon or or wherever, FedEx, UPS, US mail tracking numbers, like what if if our products were what would we do without it and many other aspects of our lives? [Chair David Durfee]: But thank you thank you both for those responses. Any other questions or thoughts thoughts from the committee? So I'll I'll say just in case people are thinking, you know, where does this conversation fit into some work of the committee? You know, there's no bill on the wall that that that addresses this and so like anything else, if there's an interest among the committee in working on something legislatively, we can do that in in the committee. We have couple of different ways forward. So I certainly feel that this is incomplete work. [Representative Jed Lipsky]: And if the committee is interested, I would like to be involved in that. [Chair David Durfee]: I think I think the next step might be to see what other stakeholders were who participated in, over the course of the fall in in getting this study ready. If the other person would like to come in and share their thoughts as well, it might be next step. And in the meantime, committee members can be thinking about what, you know, what might we do in committee bill? It can happen at the same time. Representative Burt. [Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: The professor the professor that you reached out to, Niles from UVM Yes. Doing PFOS research with her students. Yes. They also do what other states are doing, like Connecticut and [Chair David Durfee]: the subject things? Well, perhaps not her students just because they're food food studies. [Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Oh, okay. [Chair David Durfee]: But there may be other I [Representative Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: know Nick I don't know if they work for the other I know that he does. I I gotta look up his name. He gave me his contact, but, gentleman that comes to my apple orchard, the nuts that he does. He's from UBM. Okay. Students that do research volatiles. [Chair David Durfee]: Okay. Yep. If you'd yeah. We could Alright. Gentleman. Okay. Okay. Representative O'Brien. I [Representative John O'Brien]: just wondered what the [Witness Dana Duran]: this two year pause you referenced to anyone else. Good question. It was it was actually written into the report. It was the recommendation of the of the AGO that, essentially, we take two years and sit back and put it in first gear and just watch what happens with h six fourteen and then take it up again in two years. [Chair David Durfee]: I I think it was an acknowledgment that the wheels of justice turned at a a two year pace. Well, I two month based it. [Representative Jed Lipsky]: I think it specifically referred to two indictments or charges within the last year that have yet to be adjudicated. See what the impact of that effort was. And I think to try to paraphrase, the assistant attorney general testified to the in one of the recent cases that they just brought the the alleged villain or the defendant seems to be guilty of a whole lot of other criminal activities, and they will likely focus on the activity that has the best chance of being prosecuted successfully. And and that's as far as I'll call. So Yeah. Mhmm. That do to help remediate the challenge that we set out to do at the urging of representative Mahali over a year ago. I don't know. I'm not confident that the two years will be well spent. [Chair David Durfee]: Sam, did you have anything else? [Witness Sam Lincoln]: Yes, chairman Durfee. I think to this point in this discussion that we know a lot now. We have had a lot of informed testimony, that was not particularly based on speculation or wondering what might happen. And, I I think we know enough now to draft something and and move ahead, that would be action oriented and and leave those of us in the industry that are on our side of the industry that are feeling this the the lack of prosecution of this is a is a bit of an attack on us. I may not may not be particularly not quite right, but it it's it's hurting us. And we know there are in we found out that there's more prosecutions going on than we thought, but it's still on average of about one or two a year. And we found anecdotally that there are even more instances of it going on. And without either those steps to use that two years as this really aggressive data compilation and and and public awareness campaign with a budget and tasking people and agencies with that, I I think in two years that unless [Representative Jed Lipsky]: a a a a [Witness Sam Lincoln]: champion like mister Caraview or or our organization or someone else that wants this to happen, it's not gonna happen. And I think I think just right now, we should strike while the iron's hot is my recommendation, my request that we draft something and and pull something together now. [Chair David Durfee]: Right. Well, thank you both for your input, for your testimony, and we'll have a chance at the committee to talk about next steps. We're gonna take let's just take five

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Agriculture – 2025-02-11 – 2:45APM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: